TRAINMEN & Other Collectors
De Witt Bailey sent me about 100 photo-copies that he ordered from the
National Archives. He was researching 7-30 Interest $100's and
wanted to read new material he thought pertained to that issue.
When it came in, it had nothing to do with the notes. The first
page was dated April 23, 1863 and said at the top, "
Schedule of $20
Notes B. Duncan Plate Sept 2. 1861". Below was entry No. 1
and serial numbers with plate letters for 200 notes. The
inscription reads, "
200 Notes $20 each
$4,000." The listings went on page after page.
He wrote, "
Enjoy
my experience with N.A. miscataloging! I don't want it back &
no doubt someone will find it of interest or use! Cheers, De Witt".
I have found the material of great interest and I believe you will
too. There is no name at the beginning of the ledger; but, I
think it belonged to
W. B. Johnson,
the depositary at Macon, Georgia, as I have found several entries in
two of the sections called "
Recapitulation".
The first entry in the ledger is dated April 23, 1863 and the second to
last is January 9, 1865. The last entry simply says "
Box No. 18 sent
1865".
The first section, taking up the majority of the pages lists packages
in 200 note lots. The serial number and plate letter of every
note is handwritten and each lot is under the same type heading where
the denomination is given, who the plate is attributed to and the date
on the notes in that lot. I'm convinced this was originally a
listing of notes turned in to the Johnson Depository in exchange for
the new currency and then sent on to Richmond, Va. There are
entries such as "
Sent Cancelled
Treasury Notes to E.C. Elmore Tr Richmond, Va "as follows".
On the pages I found just a few notations of mistakes in the shipments
saying things like "
Reported to be $100
over from Richmond" on a shipment of $730,000 face value. "
Reported $30
Short; $680. Counterfeit" was for a shipment of $725,000. "
Reported $195.
Counterfeit; $40 over" was for a shipment of $715,000. I
might have overlooked a notation or two; but, there don't appear to be
many.
W.B. Johnson quit listing serial numbers after his first two large
groups. It became too much work and the volume was so great it
must have overwhelmed him. He does list the number of packages,
the denomination, the amount per package, the plate, the date of the
notes contained and the total amount in all his other entries.
The largest entry is dated August 15, 1864 and was for
$5,000,000. The smallest entry, his last, is for $49,587.00 to
Richmond, Va. January [no day] 1865. This entry contains every
denomination from several thousand $1 and $2 to only two pieces of 1864
$500.
[Mutilated notes - image at end]
The entry listed as Box Number 12, September 20, 1864 got me real
excited. I had just read where 1 package Sept 2d, 1861 $10 with
$10,000 and 1 package Sept 2d, 1862 with $10,000 were shipped to
Richmond. Below this were the $20 entries and I read, 2 Package
$20 Notes 2000 Ea Sept 2d, 1861 40,000; 5 "
[do] $20 "
2000 April 6, 1863 100,000; 1 " " " " Dec. 2d. 1862 20,000; 1 " " " "
Sept. " 1862 20,000.
At
this point I said WAIT! <G>
Did you catch that entry?
1
Package $20 Notes 20,000 Sept. 2, 1862 20,000. I thought
I'd hit the jackpot with that entry. I was all excited and then I
asked myself the question, "did he make a mistake with the
entry?" Of course and without a doubt he did; but, I still went
back through all the listings to see if I could find a group of $20
Hoyer & Ludwig Plate Notes dated Sept. 2d, 1862. I then
rechecked his entries for that date and and found $5, $10 and $50 Sept.
2d, 1861 as well as Sept. 2d, 1862 $10; but no Sept 2d, 1861
$20's. There were Sept. 2d, 1861 $20's in all the listings except
here. He made a mistake by listing the wrong year.
The $10 September 2, 1862 has been known as an issue; but, it's been
discussed for a long time because there is no printers name on the
note. Sidney Kerksis in his 1956 article
ENIGMATICAL CONFEDERATE CURRENCY
ISSUES said, "
The discovery of
the signed vignette is additional evidence in this direction",
meaning that Hoyer and Ludwig printed the T46. He also said, "
All the previous writers have stated that
the note was printed by Hoyer and Ludwig, which is likely, and that the
date is in error, presumably that it should have been September 2,
1861. The author cannot agree with this premise."
The premise he disagrees with is that the note was an undetected error
because it bears an incorrect date. I guess he thought the date
was OK. I don't see that he explains himself on that point; but,
Doug Ball, in his 1966 article,
CERTAIN ENIGMATICAL CONFEDERATE
CURRENCY ISSUES, while
attempting
to prove the 'Essay Notes' were bogus and counterfeit, says "
it would only be fair to note that the
rest of Kerksis' article, concerning Ludwig's note, has stood the test
of time." He goes on to say, "
First, while our attribution of these
notes has hitherto rested almost entirely upon Kerksis' discovery that
Ludwig "signed" his vignette of commerce, I have discovered new
evidence that explains the entire situation." Dr. Ball
gives some historical background culled from information found in the
Treasury correspondence and says "
Should
any further proof be needed, I recently found in the National Archives
two Treasury Warrants dated November 21 and December 13, 1862.
These prove that Hoyer and Ludwig were paid $6,483.42 for lithographing
635,536 notes - only 336 more
than were actually issued."*{
see end} Dr. Ball goes
on to explain why Kerksis is incorrect about the date on the notes
being correct. All this time I thought Doug was agreeing with
Kerksis about the date on the notes; but, just now, when I reread the
section, I see I was mistaken. After his explanation he says,
"Their date, therefore, is nothing but a minor error."
The information from the National Archives Doug referenced is proof
that Hoyer and Ludwig printed notes. It's additional
circumstantial evidence that Hoyer and Ludwig created the plate to
print
the notes. Here, in these ledger entries, is what I think is
definite proof that the plate for the 1862 $10 regular issue notes,
without printers name [T46], was created by LUDWIG, or by Hoyer &
Ludwig. The listings for $10 September 2d, 1861 notes has
H & Ludwig listed by them.
Following those listings you find '
Schedule
$10 Ludwig Plate Sept 2d, 1862' and it is also found in the
later entries. The T46 PLATE was attributed to LUDWIG in 1863 and
for this depositary to know it, everyone associated with the CS
Treasury must have known it. Images of the ledger showing H &
Ludwig Plate 1861
and Ludwig Plate 1862 are PROOF the T46 was
created by Ludwig and, of course, the warrants Doug Ball found add
additional
proof that Hoyer and Ludwig were the printers of the issue, even if
their name as a printing or lithographing company is not indicated on
the note.
Here is a list of a few images I made with a brief explanation of
what's in each one. These images are not in order found in
the ledger. Schedule images are 1/4th [50 serial #'s] of a
section
[200 serial #'s] and two sections [400 serial #'s] make a page.
1) One sheet marked "Recapitulation". Here is the notation
of sending notes to EC Elmore, Treasurer, Richmond, Va. Evans
& Cogswell notes are indicated here as well as Keatinge and Ball
and Hoyer and Ludwig. 200dpi
IMAGE
2) Dated April 23, 1863, this is the first listing. Schedule of
$20 Notes
B. Duncan Plate,
Sept 2, 1861. 100dpi
IMAGE
3) Schedule $10 Notes
B. Duncan
Plate Sept. 2, 1861 100dpi
IMAGE
4) Schedule $10 Notes
J.T.
Patterson Plate Sept. 2, 1861 100dpi
IMAGE
5) Schedule $10 Notes
Keating
& Ball Plate Sept. 2, 1861. Keatinge is spelled
without an 'e' several times in the listings. It is correct, or
with 'e', in later entries. A 200dpi close-up of 'Keating' is
included here. 100dpi
IMAGE
6) Schedule $20 Notes
Keating
& Ball Plate Sept. 2, 1861 Note: W X Y Z are
very clear! 100dpi
IMAGE
7) Schedule $10 Notes
Southern
Bank Co. Plate Sept 2, 1861 Complete & 200dpi
total. 100dpi
IMAGE
8) Schedule $50 Notes
Southern
Bank Note Co. Plate Sept 2 / 61 Complete
[T15's] 100dpi
IMAGE
9) Schedule $20 Notes
H &
Ludwig Plate July 25 / 61 200dpi
IMAGE
10) Schedule $20 Notes
Hoyer
& Ludwig Plate Sept 2, 1861 Note HOYER spelled
out. 100dpi
IMAGE
11) Schedule of $20 Notes
H and
Ludwig Plate Sept 2, 1861 Note serial #'s and positions.
100dpi
IMAGE
12)
Schedule of $10 Notes
Ludwig
Plate Sept 2 / 62 This is the
PROOF
image! [T46] 100dpi
IMAGE
13) Box #8, Sept 8, 1864 76 $10 April 6/63 $10K $760K
Reported to be
$10 over from Richmond 200dpi
IMAGE
14) Box No 18 sent 1865 [Last entry after Jan 9th.] CS
Treasurer Richmond Va. 200dpi
IMAGE
15) This is the "
Error Listing"
that got me excited.
$20 Sept. 2, 1862
200dpi
IMAGE
16) W.B. Johnson Depositary, Geo. This one just lists
state. 100dpi
IMAGE
17) W.B. Johnson Depositary, Macon, Georgia. City and State
spelled out. 100dpi
IMAGE
18) Bottom of last page, Mutilated Notes. Note 2 $500 Feb
17/64 and Bank Notes. 200dpi
IMAGE
These are most likely some of the large hordes of notes confiscated at
the end of the WAR. Johnson was sending these large lots of notes
back to the Treasurer's office in Richmond until January of 1865.
From earlier notations, we know that they were received and a report
was sent back to him. I noticed quite a few of the scarcer plate
positions from the T18 series and at first he went to a lot of trouble
to list every serial number and the exact placement of both plate
letters and sub letters or numbers.
I hope you've enjoyed this small piece of Confederate Treasury Note
history and the discovery of additional PROOF that the T46 plate was
created by LUDWIG. It may be that Hoyer and Ludwig created
the plate and Johnson simply listed them this way to make them stand
out in his ledger entries.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.
De Witt Bailey was kind enough to share this with me and I felt I
should share it with the rest of the group.
Thank
You De Witt!
Col Crutch Williams CSA TM01
Question of the WEEK!
Doug Ball said:
"These [
warrants he found in the NA]
prove that Hoyer and Ludwig were
paid $6,483.42 for lithographing 635,536 notes - only 336 more than were actually issued."
*
While there
could have been some spoilage or unissued remainders, I wonder if the
additional 336 T46 notes not accounted for could have been the number
of ESSAY notes printed? It was common
practice to only pay for the number of notes or sheets delivered.
Spoilage would have been accounted for with the clerk who disbursed
blank sheets. This is a total of 42 extra sheets, based on 8
notes to sheet, 84 sheets if 4 subject and 168 if 2 subject. 336
pieces just seems a rather large number of rmainders. :-) Just a thought!
